Linux-Advocacy Digest #453, Volume #28 Thu, 17 Aug 00 12:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Notebook/Windows rebate? ("B. Joshua Rosen")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:06:56 GMT
>>>>> "T" == T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Chris Wenham in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>>>> "T" == T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
>> (I've noticed that I "seem" to be saying a lot that I, in fact,
>> didn't.)
> Funny how that works, isn't it? Language is a wonderous thing. The way
> you say something, what you choose to say, the things you avoid saying;
> all of these are just as important as your words. Of course, a typical
> troll tactic is to insist that all else must be ignored, particularly
> when it shows that your words are empty, endless attempts at
> misdirection and insinuation. I call it "intentional ignorance", and it
> is a game I refuse to play.
> Oh, am I being too harsh?
I understand the rage in your words, but not the words.
>> I think most Kitchentop PC buyers have [...]
> First you say you're thinking, but then the rest is just you imagining
> that you can second-guess the market. I've got no time and less
> patience for it, thanks.
It looks like the part you snipped was "...prioritized what they're
willing to spend time learning. Most of them are looking for a vendor
they can trust so that they can just buy their PC, use it out of the
box and spend the rest of their time dealing with higher
priorities."
That's an opinion I infered from observation. I told you what was the
observation. I prefaced the opinions with "I think". And in regards
to the inferences I made, I would also be interested in evidence to
the alternatives.
> Chris; the reason the desktop market 'belongs' to Windows and Linux
> can't get into it is because Microsoft criminally prevented OEMs from
> engaging in a free market.
*sigh*
> Proven in a court of law, and all that, and I
> don't feel like going over it all on Usenet yet again.
EXCELLENT! I THOUGHT I WAS IN AN ARGUMENT WHICH PUT ALL OF THAT
BEHIND IT!
Lets have a party to celebrate Max's realization: That the monopoly
and how it was enforced is a concept that's _undersood_!
How about we get back to talking about the original subject: How we
can sell more Linux boxes to the Kitchentop market? Huh? How about
that, eh? Here's my suggestion: I think that the presense of
technical support is a /major/ selling factor. AND GUESS WHAT? That's
what I've been talking about for the past six or seven posts! WHAT AN
OBSERVATION!
> All the rest of this is just desperate trolling on your part.
No, let me tell you what's desparate: Someone who invents ulterior
motives and attributes them to his opponent because he's trying to
change the subject.
How about you stop trying to find reasons to call me a troll and
start finding reasons to support your argument? Here's a rehash of
mine, as to provide context when you remind us of yours:
In order to sell to the Kitchentop market, technical support must be
included as part of the package. I say this because I've directly
observed first-time home computer buyers and what their behavior
suggests are their primary concerns.
NOTE TO SPECTATORS: This point has nothing to do with Microsoft, its
monopoly, the Trilateral Comission, the Pope or the Queen Mum. It's
point is addressing the prospects of Free Software in a post-monopoly
era that may possibly follow a court ordered remedy.
ADDENDUM TO NOTE: I have never changed the subject to deviate from
this. Not by pretending that the monopoly is anything more than
background to the issue. Not even by calling Max a troll, an idiot, a
silly person or a Republican. The author would APPRECIATE similar
restraint from Mr. Devlin, rather than lobbing around the word
"troll" as if character assasination was now the only thing that
could save his face.
> It has nothing
> to do with education, tech support, or technology.
It HAD nothing to do with education, tech support or technology. But
now it /can/. If the contracts which forced alternative operating
systems off most PCs have been nulled by the courts, then Free
Software must still have some intrinsic benefits beyond price and the
incarnated expression of free speech.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: "B. Joshua Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.portable
Subject: Re: Notebook/Windows rebate?
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 11:03:09 -0400
Dell seems to charge much more for a machine with Linux then it does for
the same system with Windows, so you are pretty much stuck with buying a
Windows machine even if you aren't going to use the Windows software. I
know how you feel, I own four copies of Windows and Office and never use
any of them. Frankly I'd rather sit on a hot poker than use a Microsoft
product but the fact is it's cheaper to buy a machine from Dell, even
with the Microsoft tax, then it is to buy a Linux system from someone
else. There is one way to get some value from the Windows crap that you
end up owning. Buy a copy of Win4Lin from http://www.trelos.com. Win4Lin
allows you to run Windows on top of Linux so you can use those Windows
applications that you're stuck with. Win4Lin fixes Win98's worst
feature, when a program crashes it doesn't bring down the system just
the window in which you are running Win4Lin.
Nobody Needs to Know wrote:
>
> Howdy, folks.
>
> I'm looking at buying a new notebook, but I have no need/desire for
> Windows. A friend of mine recently told me that there's some way to
> return your unopened bundled copies of Microsoft software to Microsoft for
> a rebate. Anybody know anything about this? I'm probably going to get a
> Dell Inspiron 5000, but Dell INSISTS that you MUST have Windows 98 and
> Office SBE. You can't opt out of them. If there's some way to get a
> rebate on these things, I'd certainly love to know how. Alternatively, if
> there's some readily available resale market on them, I'd be happy to do
> that, too.
>
> Thanks,
> -- David
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 17 Aug 2000 15:14:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Said Donal K. Fellows in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> This is all very well, until the end-user rumbles on up in a year's
>> time, tells you that they're very happy with what you've done, but
>> could you just add a few more features? Like more users, windows and
>> performance on their new hardware (possibly implying threads.) That's
>> when gotos tend to bite.
>>
>> One of the biggest challenges in professional computer system design
> [...]
>
> I will re-iterate. I am not talking about professional computer system
> design, or even amateur application programming. I am talking about
> operator automation of professionally developed applications and
> systems.
Beware of creeping featureitis, it is ever the enemy of keeping such
(understandable) goals within sight...
> There is a large gulf between simple procedural automation and
> actual structured programming which the end-user simply doesn't need to
> cross in order to deal locally with their relatively trivial
> requirements.
Bah! There are definitely better languages for this area out there.
(<shamelessplug> Tcl for one. </shamelessplug>) They offer the
simplicity that makes writing a quick macro lash-up easy, *and* the
power for when you need to do something more. You don't want OO?
Don't use it. The language copes just fine without. But its there
whenever you've got a task that needs it.
> Visual Basic started out (sort of) as a 'meta macro language'. In
> the hands of Microsoft, however, it never even pretended to be
> usable at that level. It frustrates me, and millions of others,
> that you need to bother with classes and objects and many even more
> arcane 'real programming' concepts just to build a macro in a
> wordprocessor or spreadsheet.
VB takes the good features of Basic and pitches them straight in the
trash. It manages to be both non-simple and incapable of dealing with
substantial complexity. It doesn't scale well, and yet its solutions
for small problems are too large. In short, it's a bad choice for
everything. Only the MS juggernaut keeps it alive, and that's at
least in part because it isn't (seriously) supported on any other
platform (which is a consequence of how nasty it is!)
Were the operator-driven macros created in some other language like
Perl, Tcl or Python (and this is certainly possible in all those
languages) then you would not be in such dire straits.
Donal (the thought of non-sysadmins using Perl is a little scary
though - the language isn't all that well tuned to non-expert
use IMHO. Better to stick to Tcl and Python...)
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Actually, come to think of it, I don't think your opponent, your audience,
or the metropolitan Tokyo area would be in much better shape.
-- Jeff Huo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:18:13 GMT
>>>>> "T" == T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Chris Wenham in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>>>> "rj" == rj friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Face reality sonny boy. It is not a case of the whole world
>> > being wrong and you being right. Stick your head in the sand
>> > and pretend all you want - but deep in your heart you have
>> > to face the fact that you are 100% full of shit.
>>
>>
>> And why are you so full of coprolalia?
>>
>>
>> Just debate the facts, man. Jeez. If he's wrong then it ought to be
>> easy.
> If he (or you) ever showed any sign of being able to admit that you've
> already lost the debate on the facts, by an extremely wide margin,
> perhaps there wouldn't be the need to constantly point out that you guys
> are full of shit, hmm?
Why are you using an unrelated context to claim victory over an
unfinished debate?
Is this because you have no confidence in your own argument anymore,
so you seek a new audience to crow to?
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 11:17:14 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"rj friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 17:10:17 "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> �> �...since I disgree with the law in principle and consider
> �> �most of the evidence to be irrelevant, it's hardly surprising I have a
> �> �different opinion to you, no ?
>
>
> �> The United States of America - and the European Common
> �> Market - and China - and Japan - and India - all say that
> �> your 'different opinion' is full of shit.
>
> �You mean, their legal systems. I sincerely doubt everyone in those
> �countries agrees on that point.
>
> The case before the courts was between the United States of
> America and MS. The United States of America won - live with
> it.
>
>
> �I fear I've been too subtle in trying to say arguments along the line of
> �"but they broke the law" don't carry too much weight with me.
>
> You haven't been too subtle - you have been downright
> stupid. The law is the law and when you break the law and
> get convicted of breaking the law you get punished. Live
> with it.
>
>
> �> Face reality sonny boy. It is not a case of the whole world
> �> being wrong and you being right.
>
> �Indeed, there are a lot of people who agree with me.
>
> Too bad for all of you. In a democracy not everybody likes
> every law - but they still have to abide by them - like it
> or not. MS broke the law; they got caught; the United States
> of America took them to court; the United Statesa of America
> proved they were guilty. Whether or not *you* like the law
> has nothing to do with it. Live with it.
Depends upon the interpretation of the law. To me a drunk driver who kills a
family has commited murder and IS a mass murderer. yet in the eyes of the
law he/she has merely commited accidental manslaughter. To the DOJ and
their collusive judge, Microsoft is a monopoly, yet to consumers Microsoft
is just_another_choice.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:25:58 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
> [...]
> >> >Why are you ethically superior to a cannibal?
> >>
> >> Which cannibal? I'm not going to put my real ethical judgement up
> >> against an abstraction. All else being equal, I would be less ethical
> >> if I considered it was my right to kill and eat other people.
> >
> >A cannibal that is basically just like you, except that if he happened
> >to be hungry, and a dead person is for sale at the butcher's, (dead
> >person who died of natural causes), he would buy and eat that dead
> >person.
> >
> >Now, are you ethically superior? Why?
>
> That depends on whether he still beats his wife.
He is "basically like you" , so that's not in question. You know
if he does or does not.
> I knew that sooner or later this would come down to a definition of
> "cannibal". Cannibalism as an ethical dilemma is a wide and sordid
> topic. I was referring, to simplify the discussion, to people who kill
> other people in order to eat them.
Which is only one of the variants of cannibalism. There are others.
Some eat the deads of battle. The battle is not to get meat,
but they eat them. Are you superior to them?
> Personally, I don't think there's
> any ethical dilemma in the "Soylent Green" approach you described,
> though its obvious that this is distasteful to the vast majority of
> people. Partially because of "slippery slope"-type ethical arguments,
> but probably mostly due to some other, non-ethical, issues.
Ok. So my statement of being not superior, in principle, to a cannibal,
was correct. Thank you very much.
> [...]
> >> >No "more ability to learn", but simply more to learn from.
> >>
> >> Correct. Do I *blame* the cannibal for being less ethical? Of course
> >> not. Does that mean they are not less ethical? Perhaps to a
> >> relativist, perhaps not to an absolutist. Being a realist, I'd have to
> >> say it isn't that simple.
> >
> >You said you were not going to judge an abstract cannibal, please don't.
>
> You're not paying attention. I never said any such thing.
Oh, you did: "Which cannibal? I'm not going to put my real ethical
judgement up against an abstraction."
[snip]
> [...]
> >> In all likelihood, if I had your DNA, and precisely your experience, I
> >> would be you. Does that worry you?
> >
> >No. What is the connection with the current argument?
>
> It is your current argument, vis-a-vis "they were acting ethically
> according to their social context".
Having my DNA is not needed to have my social context. Why do you bring
it
in?
> [...]
> >> So are you willing to argue that humans don't have free will, yet?
> >
> >Individually, yes, statistically, not.
>
> That doesn't make any sense. If they have individual free will, why
> wouldn't they show the application of free will statistically? Just
> what is "statistical free will", or lack there of?
Each person can choose. I just expect there is a much higher probability
of them choosing one way over the other. So, in the end, the mass
follows
the probability. It's basic stuff.
> [...]
> >> Unfortunately, I'm afraid we'd have to say "everyone who accepted that
> >> they were aware of the will of God". Seeing as how there isn't a God,
> >
> >Bzzt, proof by assertion, the rest is discarded for starting from
> >a flawed premise. You are not doing it any better, by asserting the
> >nonexistance of God, than they did by asserting the opposite.
>
> That's a troll tactic, not an argument. My argument does not rest on
> whether I can prove the nonexistence of God.
Uh? You are using God's nonexistence as a premise!
God doesn't exist => some must know god doesn't exist =>
some knew they would not go to hell => they knew they were doing wrong
=> they are unethical.
Or weren't you?
> Neither does my
> philosophy, which recognizes that without any necessity for or physical
> indication that there is a God, it means there is not one. If you wish
> to try to prove there is a God, feel free. You'll find that assertion
> is the only possible mechanism, in the end. Which means there is no
> God.
That has to be the most braindead argument against the existence of God
I have ever seen. You are raising Occam to the level of axiom.
> But if you wish to take the easy way out and refuse to consider my
> statements because I'm an atheist, that is your right.
Nope. I am just starting to believe you are the kind of atheist
that believes he is superior to theists.
> [...]
> >> So why are you arguing against this, if you are so willing to agree to
> >> it?
> >
> >Think hard.
>
> Ha. I have, and apparently more than you.
And yet, nothing to show for it.
> So are you going to answer my question now,
Did two lines below. You should read in larger chunks.
> or continue to avoid the issue in order to preserve
> your delusional idea that your moral relativism is somehow superior to
> the opposite extreme?
Well, it is superior when measured in my frame of reference. I don't
expect you to share that position.
> [...]
> >The point you miss is the "than they had available to them easily.".
> >We just learned more, and it was not our merit at all.
>
> Again, you want to characterize the issue as some sort of
> self-aggrandizing hubris. I didn't say it was to our merit that we
> learned more.
Oh, but you are so proud and feel so more ethical than they were...
Or don't you?
> I did say, and will continue to do so because it is true,
> even if your partial understanding of ethics prevents you from
> understanding it, that it makes us more ethical than they.
And you are so proud of it...
> [...]
> >> BTW, how would you define post-modernist, and where did you learn of it?
> >
> >This is as good a definition as I have seen (in a perverted way):
> >
> >http://www.ukans.edu/~medieval/melcher/matthias/t70/0028.html
>
> I've seen much better. Try this article, titled "Postmodernism and
> Universal Human Rights", by Xiaorong Li, for a less concise but less
> explicit view.
> http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/li_18_4.html
>
> >Basically, I just read an awful lot.
>
> You ought to read Free Inquiry, then. Check the home page of the link
> above; I'm sure you'll find it fascinating, if your thoughts run to this
> kind of thing. You'll be abandoning your "postmodern relativism" stance
> in short order, I think.
>
> [...]
> >> There's every possibility, in fact, that we agree almost entirely. If
> >> you hadn't jumped in to prevent what you saw as social relativism, I
> >> might have done so myself (but for the fact that this is all rather
> >> grossly off-topic). I'm quite fond of pointing out that were we in
> >> someone else's shoes, we might well make the same "wrong" choices they
> >> make, and that may be all you meant to do.
> >
> >That was the main point, really.
>
> Then you should have stuck to it, I think. But I'm only comfortable
> saying something like that because I don't believe in 'free will'.
You don't? Interesting. Are you forced to be this annoying?
> >> But I'm not going to claim that no ethical judgements can be made,
> >
> >Throw a "universal" in there, and you will be closer to what I
> >say.
>
> I know. But you'll notice that not only didn't I "throw it in there",
> but I stated that I'm *don't* make such a claim.
"I'm don't"? Please rephrase.
> >> or that whether something is wrong is entirely and solely a matter of
> >> whether it matches one person's moral or ethical values.
> >
> >Since I consider the concept itself of unqualified "wrong" to be
> >problematic, I won't discuss its application to actions.
>
> The fact that it is problematic is the only reason to discuss it to
> begin with. But consider that this statement was in most ways identical
> to my previous insistence that we can't make ethical judgements about
> individuals without knowing all the relevant and cogent circumstances.
As you have been told before: please don't use cogent. Are you trying
to say relevant?
> I'll now go further and point out that only the one who actually made
> the decision can be considered to be in that position; such is the
> nature (and quite problematic it is) of ethics. This might also be what
> led to your [postmodern relativist] claim that we cannot judge the
> ethics of historical societies.
>
> 'Moral absolute' or 'moral relativism 'is a false dichotomy. Ethical
> judgement through knowledgable reasoning is the moderate position.
>
> [...]
> >> So you aren't afraid to retroactively redefine morality (or whether
> >> someone is a martyr, at least),
> >
> >I don't redefine retroactively. I redefine from now on, and apply
> >my morality to events of the past.
>
> That *is* a retroactive redefinition.
No. If I define length in meters, and calculate the height of Troy's
walls in centimeters, I am not defining retroactively to before the
destruction of Troy.
> >What I don't do is assume that
> >because i redefined my morality everyone else should have had
> >that new definition since the dawn of time. That is the sin of
> >the moral absolutist, really.
>
> You're still confusing morality with ethics. Not your fault, not your
> fault. The classical descriptions of either confabulates the two. I
> believe that is primarily, however, to account for dualism.
>
> >> but you find a utilitarian explanation for oppression to be
> >> objectionable?
> >
> >Indeed.
>
> But you have used such a position; the original "the church was
> preserving social order [or their own power; it makes no difference]"
I didn't say that, anywhere.
> argument you proffered is nothing more than a utilitarian explanation
> for oppression.
It would be, had I done it.
> >> You can stomach the idea of a mass-murderer being a martyr for
> >> cruel and unusual punishment,[...]
> >> but the idea that the church was acting correctly when they
> >> persecuted Galileo is repugnant? But, weren't you the one who
> >> said almost precisely that?
> >
> >I never said correctly. Please abstain from putting words in my
> >posts.
>
> Oh, Christ. Get your head out of my ass.
What an unpleasant image.
> We're finally getting
> somewhere, and you want to quibble. You're just trying to back out of
> your own argument; without the word 'correctly', the statement would
> simply be "the church acted", and that's rather obvious, wouldn't you
> say?
Ok, here you have it with the word in it:
The church acted based on their view of the world, in ways that
appeared to be correct (there you have it), for them, even if they
seem incorrect (that one too) for us.
Now, if you say my argument is wrong, you can surely do it without
changing it into something else.
I find it very hard to find it wrong, but I'm sure you can.
> [...]
> >> Only if you pay any attention at all to 'doctrine', which seems
> >> self-defeating to me. When there are inner contradictions, then the
> >> doctrine is flawed and unsupportable. No problem.
> >
> >Well, sometimes, depending on why you adopted the doctrine in
> >the first place, you can't just throw it away.
>
> The inability to recognize the future impact of your current actions is
> a dubious defense of unethical behavior. You adopted the doctrine; if
> supporting it causes you to act unethically, than your adoption of it
> may well have been unethical to begin with.
Maybe.
> If you do not question whether what you do is ethical, then you are not
> being ethical.
And what happens if you question, and you say yes?
> [...]
> >> What was the empirical knowledge that there was an immortal soul?
> >
> >According to the historical record accepted at the time, a man of
> >superhuman powers said it existed.
>
> Which is to say "there was none".
There was plenty of testimony (accepted as historical) for it.
What empirical knowledge do you have that there is a planet called
Pluto?
> Are you perhaps pre-supposing that
> there were no humanists, or even atheists, at the time, who recognized
> that this "historical record" was not merely hearsay, but patently false
> (rife with apparent and substantial contradictions, at least) and that
> no real evidence of the existence of anyone with superhuman powers is or
> was available?
You know, a muslim philosopher once calculated the time needed until
the acts of Jesus would be considered invention. He said 1750. Quite
close, I must say. (Notice I have no idea about whether Jesus lived
or not).
> Certainly, the majority of peasants wouldn't have had the education or
> the luxury needed to contemplate these things, perhaps. But some did.
>
> And they were persecuted for it. The potentially unpleasant results of
> acting ethically, however, are not an excuse for acting unethically.
>
> [...]
> >> Quite so. And so, in stating that we are "on ethically higher ground"
> >> than barbarians is not prideful relativism, but enlightened observation,
> >
> >Well, prideful relativism it sure isn't. It reeks of crypto absolutism,
> >looked from here.
>
> That is due to your perception, not the statement itself. You really
> want to think that people apply their own value structure to other
> cultures too much.
Who told you I want that?
> Since they do, you are unable to see the line where
> this is no longer appropriate. Read that Xiaorong Li article, it makes
> the case quite plainly, in my perspective.
Whatever.
> >> and encourages ethical behavior, rather than encourages believing that
> >> we can blindly follow what we believe is good.
> >
> >You have a serious problem with this position. You say you are on
> >ethically higher ground from anyone else. EVERYONE thinks the same thing! You are
> >avoiding the dangers of blindingly following the beliefs of others, only
> >to blindly follow your own belief.
>
> I also think I'm right, and EVERYONE thinks the same thing. I also
> think I'm pretty smart, and EVERYONE thinks the same thing.
No, I don't think you are pretty smart.
> You are assuming that because it is possible that I'm blindly
> following my own beliefs, that I am doing so, and wish to refute
> all my statements intended to dissuade you of this notion.
All I see is you doing just that.
> In other words, you're doing the same thing. You read some postmodern
> relativist philosophy, and now you're blindly following the belief that
> it is not possible to transcend your social context in observing,
> perceiving, interpreting, or making judgements about other social
> contexts.
You just got it all wrong. I perceive, interpret and make judgement
about other social contexts all the time. I just don't pretend that
such judgements are necessarily more valid than many others.
> This is the self-referential flaw in postmodernism. In order
> to be a valid position, it must itself be false.
It doesn't follow.
> >Let's put it this way: no moral relativist ever bothered enough about
> >other's beliefs to start a religious war.
>
> I wouldn't bet on that. But no moral relativist ever did anything at
> all, quite possibly.
It depends on what you mean by "doing". I suppose you consider me a
moral relativist, yet I have done some things in my life.
> It wouldn't make any sense, would it? You've
> already claimed that relativism can 'accommodate' those who believe in a
> moral absolute. So the relativist stand by while the absolutist start
> wars, and that is unethical behavior. You see what I'm saying?
No, I really don't. You seem to confuse relativism with some kind
of fanatic passivism.
> [...]
> >> >I never said "good".
> >>
> >> Why is that?
> >
> >Because the word didn't express what I wanted to say.
>
> But it did express what I wanted to say, because it expressed what you
> *said*, whether you wanted to or not. Why are you quibbling about it?
No, it expresses what you understood, which was not all.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
